Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to sections 332 to 355 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, the provisions on registered non-profit organisations.

Read the 2025 provisions

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 12AB is Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT (101 ITR 234), cited in 323 of the 5,972 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 12AB

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT
101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce
55 ITR 722 · 1965 · Supreme Court
167
citing judgments

An organization qualifies as having a charitable purpose if its primary object is the advancement of general public utility, even if its members receive incidental benefits. The existence of incidental non-charitable objects does not negate its charitable status.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)
371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court
128
citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. CIT
426 ITR 340 · 2020 · Supreme Court
116
citing judgments

For registration under Section 12AA, the Commissioner (Exemptions) must examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its proposed activities, even if the trust has not yet commenced actual charitable activities or incurred expenditure.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat
364 ITR 31 · 2014 · Supreme Court
83
citing judgments

A trust's objects, even if based on religious tenets, can qualify as charitable for tax exemptions if its benefits are not exclusively restricted to a particular religious community or caste.

CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association
140 ITR 1 · 1983 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

An object beneficial to a section of the public, as distinguished from an individual or group of individuals, qualifies as an object of general public utility under Section 2(15) and hence a charitable purpose. This applies even if the benefits are restricted to a specific caste, community, or professional group.

Trustees of Shri Kot Hindu Stree Mandal v. CIT
209 ITR 396 · 1994 · High Court
80
citing judgments

Membership fees and subscription amounts received by a trust or society from its members are not considered 'voluntary contributions' under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, as they are not gratuitous payments or gifts but are made with consideration.

CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra
130 ITR 28 · 1981 · Supreme Court
74
citing judgments

An organization’s purpose qualifies as 'general public utility' under section 2(15) if its primary objective is charitable, even if it incidentally benefits a specific group or generates some profit, provided the dominant motive is not profit-making. Such an entity is eligible for exemptions under the Act.

Judgments on Section 12AB

Udumalpet Tejas Rotary Trust, Udumalpet vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2199/CHNY/2026[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2026

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2198 & 2199/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - Udumalpet Tejas Rotary Trust, V. The Commissioner Of Income No.24, Andal Srinivasan Layout, Tax (Exemptions), Udumalpet, Tiruppur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-642 126. [Pan: Aaatu6590K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms. Sandhya, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit (E)), Chennai Dated 18.03.2026. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Failed To Submit Required Documents, Which Is Factually Incorrect & He Failed To Consider The Detailed Replies & Documents Already On Record. The Said Replies & Other Enclosures Were Uploaded Within The Time. 3. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Rejecting The Application Without Adjudicating The Delay Condonation Petition. The Delay Was Due To Genuine & Bonafide Reasons Supported By Documentary Evidence.

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 12A

Udumalpet Tejas Rotary Trust, Udumalpet vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2198/CHNY/2026[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2026

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2198 & 2199/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - Udumalpet Tejas Rotary Trust, V. The Commissioner Of Income No.24, Andal Srinivasan Layout, Tax (Exemptions), Udumalpet, Tiruppur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-642 126. [Pan: Aaatu6590K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms. Sandhya, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl. Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit (E)), Chennai Dated 18.03.2026. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Failed To Submit Required Documents, Which Is Factually Incorrect & He Failed To Consider The Detailed Replies & Documents Already On Record. The Said Replies & Other Enclosures Were Uploaded Within The Time. 3. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Rejecting The Application Without Adjudicating The Delay Condonation Petition. The Delay Was Due To Genuine & Bonafide Reasons Supported By Documentary Evidence.

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju
Section 12A

Arya Samaj Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1889/CHNY/2026[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2026

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1889/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : ---- Arya Samaj Foundation The Commissioner Of Income 212-213, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Vs. Tax (Exemption) Gopalapuram So (Chennai) Chennai. Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086 [Pan: Aawca4301P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Varun Azhagan, Advocate & Shri. Sathyaseelan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Nayani Swapna, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(E)”] In Respect Of An Application For Registration Filed By The Assessee In Form 10Ab U/S.12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Varun Azhagan, Advocate and Shri. Sathyaseelan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)

Chennai Pharma Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Co., Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1103/CHNY/2026[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2026

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1102 & 1103/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - Chennai Pharma Industrial V. The Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Tax (Exemption), Third Floor, Sidco Garment Complex, Chennai. Block-1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, [Pan: Aaccc4825C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit (E)), Chennai Dated 30.12.2025. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Cit (Exemption) Is Contrary To The Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (E) Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejecting Registration Under Section 12A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Without Appreciating That The Appellant'S Objects & Activities Are Charitable In Nature Within The Meaning Of Section 2(15) Of The Act. 3. The Learned Cit (E) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Establishment & Operation Of A Common Effluent Treatment Plant (Cetp) For Pollution Control & Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Chennai Pharma Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Co., Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1102/CHNY/2026[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2026

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1102 & 1103/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - Chennai Pharma Industrial V. The Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Tax (Exemption), Third Floor, Sidco Garment Complex, Chennai. Block-1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, [Pan: Aaccc4825C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit (E)), Chennai Dated 30.12.2025. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Cit (Exemption) Is Contrary To The Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (E) Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejecting Registration Under Section 12A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Without Appreciating That The Appellant'S Objects & Activities Are Charitable In Nature Within The Meaning Of Section 2(15) Of The Act. 3. The Learned Cit (E) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Establishment & Operation Of A Common Effluent Treatment Plant (Cetp) For Pollution Control & Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G